Questões

Texto 5

Rotina não é monotonia

A monotonia é a morte da motivação! Isso vale tanto nas relações afetivas como nas de trabalho. Não é por acaso que as pessoas que gerenciam outras no ambiente de trabalho procuram fazer com que a rotina tenha um padrão de sequência, de completude, mas tentam alterar a situação quando veem o risco de virar monotonia.

O automatismo é distrativo. Isso serve até para ver televisão. Quando o escritor mineiro Fernando Sabino dizia, de maneira genial, que “a televisão é o chiclete dos olhos”, era para descrever o estado em que você assiste a algo e não retém nada do conteúdo exibido. Na leitura, quando lemos de forma automática, chegamos ao pé da página do livro sem lembrar do que estava nas linhas superiores. Já a leitura rotineira é aquela em que você pega o material e vai lendo em sequência, procurando fruir. Quando você se distrai, é sinal de que ela se tornou automática.

CORTELLA, M. S. Por que fazemos o que fazemos? Aflições vitais sobre trabalho, carreira e realização. São Paulo: Planeta, 2016. p. 40-41. Adaptado.

Texto 1

A filosofia como forma de vida 

A filosofia, ao menos desde os tempos de Sócrates (século V a.C.), tinha como principal objetivo ajudar os sujeitos a não viver uma mera vida animal, aprendendo a construir uma forma de vida própria (bios) que fosse além da mera sobrevivência imposta pela vida biológica (zoe). Cada sujeito deveria criar a forma de sua vida de acordo com as opções axiológicas e suas convicções epistêmicas. 

Desse modo, o aparato conceitual desenvolvido por cada escola filosófica, episteme, tinha por finalidade auxiliar na constituição de um ethos ou modo de vida dos sujeitos. A finalidade filosófica de criar uma forma de vida é uma tarefa essencialmente ética. Só há ética no modo como o sujeito constitui sua vida. Como consequência, esse ethos influía nas formas coletivas que os sujeitos criaram nas pólis, política. Havia uma estreita relação entre a forma de vida e a forma política de governo.

A preocupação da filosofia por ajudar os sujeitos a criar uma forma de vida foi diminuindo a partir do século V d.C., com a transferência gradativa dessa tarefa para a teologia cristã, que vinha se consolidando como um saber que adaptou a mensagem bíblica e a tradição sapiencial oriental, própria da teologia semita, aos parâmetros da filosofia grega. Para uma parte significativa dos pensadores cristãos, a teologia cristã, do modo como eles a estavam construindo, era vista como a culminação da filosofia clássica. Michel Foucault considera que o momento crítico em que a filosofia se afastou da teologia, na sua originária missão de criar uma forma de vida, aconteceu no século XVII, quando a razão moderna separou definitivamente o conhecimento da ética, o saber do modo de ser. O que Foucault denominou de “momento cartesiano” representaria o declínio definitivo da filosofia moderna em sua missão de auxiliar os sujeitos a criar uma forma de vida.

Vários autores contemporâneos voltaram parte de suas pesquisas para essa problemática, identificando na filosofia um saber que tem a potencialidade de constituir formas de vida para os sujeitos. Para Foucault e Agamben, a filosofia é capaz de criar estilos de vida com autonomia efetiva dos sujeitos e, como consequência, uma prática que possibilite resistir aos dispositivos biopolíticos de sujeição e controle que dominam nossas sociedades.

RUIZ, C. B. A filosofia como forma de vida. Disponível em: <<http://

www.ihuonline.unisinos.br/artigo/5965-artigo-castor-bartolome-

The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power

Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?

Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.

But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.

While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.

Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power. 

This approach seems to be working because by May 2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and improve its economy without much nuclear power, maybe others can do so, too.

The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power

Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, a debate has been raging (1) the future of atomic energy. Consequently, the safety risks have been well publicized in the global media. But do the risks outweigh the damage that could be done to the planet because of our ongoing addiction to fossil fuels?

Even environmentalists don’t have the answer. They are split over nuclear (2) , and its pros and cons. Some say it is neither safe nor economical because it produces potentially (3) radioactive waste, and reactors are so costly to build. However, others believe nuclear energy is a necessary evil. They say we should continue using it until (4) energy sources, like wind turbines and solar panels, can meet global demand. Supporters also argue that nuclear energy helps cut down on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which are linked to global warming and pollute the environment. They say this is because nuclear reactors produce a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide generated by burning coal.

But perhaps the biggest hurdle for atomic energy to overcome is its image problem. Despite industry claims of a strong safety record, critics remain unconvinced because each reactor annually produces up to 30 tons of nuclear waste, which can continue to be radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 left the public with vivid images of the impact of a nuclear meltdown, including deformed babies, mutated vegetables, and abandoned towns.

While nuclear reactors may continue to be installed in some countries for decades to come, after Fukushima others have decided to rethink their energy policies. For example, the German government has revealed plans for a “green” renewable energy plan, even though it has relied on nuclear power for up to 23 percent of its consumption in the past. It has been announced that all seventeen nuclear power plants would be phased out by 2022. The policy will also promote energy-saving measures encouraging people to insulate their homes, recycle, and reduce waste. Experts argue it could be a risky strategy because Germany doesn’t have natural gas or oil supplies, and coal supplies have been depleted.

Meanwhile, in Brazil, there is just one nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis. Nuclear power represents only three per cent of Brazil’s energy production. After sharp oil price rises in the 1970s, the country’s leaders anticipated future energy supply problems. So they concentrated on developing alternative energy sources including biofuel, hydroelectric schemes, and wind power. 

This approach seems to be working because by May 2012 plans to build more nuclear reactors were shelved by Brazilian officials. The move was welcomed by environmental lobby groups, which had feared a potential ecological catastrophe in case of an accident. If a big country like Brazil, which is the tenth largest energy consumer in the world, can survive and improve its economy without much nuclear power, maybe others can do so, too.